Now, of course, several of the group-thinking leftists in the blogosphereare simply appalled. Most are spewing hateful insults to Inhofe without really debating the facts about Obama’s policies and what Inhofe actually said. That is largely because much of the time blinded Obama supporters and Leftists (not necessarily mutually exclusive) can’t argue based on the facts.

Here is what Infofe said:

Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program. Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.” …. “I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president.

Frankly, many of us, including those in government roles, have had similar thoughts. While we, nor Inhofe, at this point, could prove or even outright state that Obama is squarely on the side of our enemies, it is a rational thought to wonder which side he is on.

There are several ways to look at it – is he on the side of freedom or oppression? for or against the rights of Muslim women? supportive of his country’s history and Constitution or ashamed of it in such a way that our country must be radically “changed”?

Here’s a few more thoughts in that direction in analyzing just whose side Obama sounds like he is on:

The Asia Times had a response to Obama’s Cairo speech that hits the nail on the head regarding Obama’s validation of the “Muslim World”:

The Asia Timessaid Obama made a mistake by speaking in Cairo. “Why should the president of the United States address the ‘Muslim world?,” it asked. “What would happen if the leader of a big country addressed the ‘Christian world’? Half the world would giggle and the other half would sulk.”

“To speak to the ‘Muslim world’ is to speak not to a fact, but rather to an aspiration,” the paper stated, “and that is the aspiration that Islam shall be a global state religion as its founders intended. To address this aspiration is to breathe life into it. For an American president to validate such an aspiration is madness.”

Does Obama love his country or does he hold such disdain for the greatest country on earth that he can’t help but apologize and put us on equal footing with “The Muslim World” – particularly the part of that “world” that uses violence to spread its nasty tentacles throughout the Middle East, Europe and around the world?

Overseas, the coolest president in history was giving a speech. Or, as the official press release headlined it on the State Department Web site, “President Obama Speaks To The Muslim World From Cairo.”

Let’s pause right there: It’s interesting how easily the words “the Muslim world” roll off the tongues of liberal secular progressives who’d choke on any equivalent reference to “the Christian world.” When such hyperalert policemen of the perimeter between church and state endorse the former but not the latter, they’re implicitly acknowledging that Islam is not merely a faith but a political project, too. There is an “Organization of the Islamic Conference,” which is already the largest single voting bloc at the United Nations and is still adding new members. Imagine if someone proposed an “Organization of the Christian Conference” that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and Presidents, and vote as a bloc in transnational bodies. But, of course, there is no “Christian world”: Europe is largely post-Christian and, as President Barack Obama bizarrely asserted to a European interviewer last week, America is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Perhaps we’re eligible for membership in the OIC.

Mark Steyn also hits on Obama’s continued apologies for his own country:

Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext – the absence of American will – became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps by “no single nation” he means the “global community” should pick and choose, which means the U.N. Security Council, which means the Big Five, which means that Russia and China will pursue their own murky interests and that, in the absence of American leadership, Britain and France will reach their accommodations with a nuclear Iran, a nuclear North Korea and any other psychostate minded to join them.

Is Obama clearly ignorant of Islam in our early history or he is being disingenous, at best, with the facts of our history? He portrayed Islam as something embraced by our forefathers, when, in reality, they were studious of Islam in an effort to understand their enemy even then. Obama had this to say in his speech in Cairo:

Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” … And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

From Andy McCarthy at National Review, the history of Jefferson’s Koran is centered around Jefferson’s need to understand his enemy, not because he embraced the words of the Koran. Obama’s reference to Keith Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Koran is wholly disengenuous and his history is revisionist, just as it was when Ellison touted the fact at his inauguratoin.

[I]n 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today’s Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, ….

Recall that Jefferson had been personally exposed to Islamic beliefs when attempting to secure peace between America and Muslim terrorists. Having been told by the Muslim Ambassador that the Koran promised Paradise as a reward for enslaving, killing, and war, Jefferson inquired into the irrational beliefs that motivated the Muslim groups and individuals warring against America.

Is Obama for or against freedom? Is it freedom in the Muslim world for women to wear the hajib? Or, more correctly, is it freedom for women to have the choice to wear the hajib or not? Most Muslim cultures and states dictate (through violence, death and other means) what the women wear, who they may converse with, who they may marry, and almost every aspect of their lives…..but Obama says that the US will fight for the woman’s right to where the hajib?!?!

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn’t care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

Is he for or against the rights of Israel, our allies, to maintain its land and its growth in the settlements? Obama wants a two-state solution where Israel gives up its land to those who have already stated that Israel has no right to exist.

Mark Steyn shreds the notion that we must stop the growth of Israel into the settlements:

On the other hand, a “single nation” certainly has the right to tell another nation anything it wants if that nation happens to be the Zionist Entity: As Hillary Clinton just instructed Israel regarding its West Bank communities, there has to be “a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.” No “natural growth”? You mean, if you and the missus have a kid, you’ve got to talk gran’ma into moving out? To Tel Aviv, or Brooklyn or wherever? At a stroke, the administration has endorsed “the Muslim world’s” view of those non-Muslims who happen to find themselves within what it regards as lands belonging to Islam: the Jewish and Christian communities are free to stand still or shrink, but not to grow.Would Obama be comfortable mandating “no natural growth” to Israel’s million-and-a-half Muslims? No. But the administration has embraced “the Muslim world’s” commitment to one-way multiculturalism, whereby Islam expands in the West but Christianity and Judaism shrivel remorselessly in the Middle East.

It is disheartening to endure the apologies for this country made by our President. This country, almost from its inception, has been the beacon of good in the world. Domestically, in a few short months of this administration’s policies, we are already weary of unconstitutional takeover of private companies, union political paybacks, and “change” to a bankrupt, Socialist nation….all being implemented at lightning speed….

And we’ve yet to even endure Obama’s healthcare takeover with accompanying rationing and taxes, energy tax, and the repercussions of his “sudden” Muslim roots and awakening — and now the coddling of “the Muslim World” and their anti-freedom mindset –people who will no more respect this country than Obama seems to respect our Judeo-Christian history, traditions, and US Constitution.

In reference to immigration, Teddy Roosevelt had this to say about allegiance and loyalty to one’s country back in 1919:

“…..this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American….There can be no divided allegiance here. We have room for but one flag (in this country)….We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”

In a different twist on Inhofe’s statement, my question is: Where does Obama’s one soul loyalty lie?